Proposal to open a discussion for ADAO

Governance Offchain Discussions
41

Oh, I forgot to point this out, thanks for the comment.

I believe the cause of this issue may be the change in Astar’s gas bill. Therefore, it may be possible to resolve this issue by temporarily reverting back to the previous gas bill. Or maybe there are other avenues that could be taken? I would like to hear from someone who is familiar with this part of the process.

I have suggested supplementation, but that is a last resort. If the problem is resolved after the compensation, it does not necessarily mean that the user will get back what they were compensated for.

There is still a hand left to be played and a solution should be sought.

6 Likes
42

Totally agree, perhaps their treasury is almost empty; I am not sure the treasury was the one paying the gas fee… So in any case, finding a solution would be the first thing to be considered.

4 Likes
43

Everyone’s comments and suggestions were very helpful.Thank you very much.

I may have been somewhat mistaken in my perception of how the Builders Program was offered at the time.

My understanding of the program was limited to reading through the description at the following link, so I regret that I did not fully grasp the details of the application process and the specific duration and scope of support for projects.

So I will reconsider whether or not Astar officials is responsible for ADAO problems.

There are also those who point out the laxity of DYOR and DD, and I basically agree with that idea.

However, I believe that there is room for debate about using this theory to link everything to self-responsibility, for example, the idea that it is impractical for ordinary users to conduct safety research before using the dApp because it would require a high level of expertise, or the concern that it would be an obstacle to looking at mass adoption in the future.I believe that there are some controversial issues.

Furthermore, I personally have my doubts about the relationship between Astar officials and ambassadors and the fairness of the voting function, and I think there are points that need to be discussed, but I will refrain from posting them here because I think it would be off-topic.

Moving on to the main topic, I am interested in the proposal by @you425 to utilize community treasury.

Also, thanks to all of you, I now know that there is still a technical possibility to get the ASTR back, so I agree to put the compensation discussion on hold for now and give priority to a solution in that direction.

As I posted before, I have tried to investigate the on-chain data in my own way, but there are limitations at the layman’s level, so I would appreciate any help from those who have expertise in this area.

*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

8 Likes
44

ZAX1YBVJFsmk3oviYToPbTqSTeGECoynYmyFNsVgDoimyzA
ZAX1YBVJFsmk3oviYToPbTqSTeGECoynYmyFNsVgDoimyzA1644×3325 159 KB

This is a Native account associated with ADAO’s ASTR deposits and withdrawals.

Can anyone explain why the 139,426.2557 ASTR in the “locked balance” is not transferable?

I think that if this amount can be transferred, it might be transferred to the 5 addresses that have already burned the ibASTR and are waiting for the ASTR to be returned.

5 Likes
45

I agree aswell. Of coure projects are getting supported by Astar with be listed on dApp Staking but Users should still track the project and be aware of the risk when using their funds.

5 Likes
46

ADAO has been removed from dApp Staking on Astar Network.

ADAO stakers can now claim their rewards and withdraw their tokens without unbonding period from the unregistered contract using the Astar Portal or the Polkadot.js interface.

Using Polkadot.js Interface:

If you encounter any difficulties, you can refer to the troubleshooting guide in the Astar documentation or join the Astar Discord to ask for help.

7 Likes
47

It’s good to see them removed. I’m sharing with our community as soon as possible!

7 Likes
48

Thank you for executing the delisting of ADAO from dApp Staking.

This has saved ADAO users except for Liquid Staking service users.

Your continued cooperation in resolving the issue would be appreciated.


While researching addresses associated with ADAO, I found something suspicious.

I suspect a connection between the ADAO operator and the AVault operator based on the transaction history of the associated addresses.

If there is a connection between ADAO and Avault, contacting the Avault operator may provide some clues.

I am a layman who cannot read code, so I would appreciate a closer examination by someone in the know.


Below are a few picks from the group of addresses that I suspect are related.

Related Addresses

(1) ibASTR Contract Creator:
0x622cB4f5Ab9fA81eEC83251D23Cc0AF5f2ee029F

(2) AVAT(AVault Token) Contract Creator:
0x41BA3387E1a5a592E27B9EE33935957CE5F872C1

(3)Contract(DistributeRewards) created by (1):
0x68543eBfFbDDE5a1D6D8E6BbECa4220C6a34bA05

(4) 0xd28AB26224D2aaf3f17D0d9eC5B1Df9697fD5F1E

(5) 0xFB83a67784F110dC658B19515308A7a95c2bA33A

(6) 0xd0511eEB11985627aD8C0Da3f4644c363E6A2Cc0

(7) 0xAE4e16025AE450A2EEe0d08F380A246004c61888

Transfer

・(1) → (2)
TxHash:0x950a69a2f2bac289af91dbdcd0b7285a0104fe4358438a8d7a957c7061e712e2

・(1) → (3)
TxHash:0x465e531bce72932aea673dec9410d67945cc5bf91f11fd76a7fc0076f739a1b1

・(1) → (4)
TxHash:0x86280576aa508e853a96a8b7c7d8c66d42d390e2f33001e2f5fd85cc84bf04cd

・(1) → (6)
TxHash:0xde4557495157ae10c4384b6ba078e5b5f1ec058b05cf840545681dbda474531b

・(1) → (7)
TxHash:0x61f6f1389944ff53d1b77482835d9be288eec01003561f72c0524099b2775ca1

・(2) → (4)
TxHash:0xa050d2d73f4cfe34362f39292ff863a60ebc86dab2af3f5769df733badd087c4

・(2) → (6)
TxHash:0x41d3c4bf1923d130b6aa07784da76e3b88b57113d67b15e2a5d77e96598a7c9e

・(2) → (7)
TxHash:0x5e8bd88f1f0e348ad349119bfdaec71f1cf528bac970bcc8951131e52716cab5

・(4) → (3)
TxHash:0x1970d8547fe93a6dd7ae01d6bba2a2d30836dcd496d53e9119e5e026faa6c452

・(5) → (1)
TxHash:0xc9ac69744f5e868559a905d6a4379a7bf0aee7f194b009b4b342fcdc49afc3f6

・(5) → (2)
TxHash:0x90a7c33e384861a1a738b37a7ee2e66285fc75cc3fd280c9744e3fda06a4c55c

・(5) → (6)
TxHash:0xc559eadd51c0f51d92496aff8936db33dd0c7e807e4cdc63b7ea70644ce58018

・(6) → (2)
TxHash:0x942eab71681606b9e7c7b3800cbf7143d62939944b9cef79d5141eed71644fc8

・(7) → (2)
TxHash:0x668cda93881c9dbca964c6ea8f6268b34e8b22715ded173542ae9885c46de920


*I am a layman who cannot read code, so there may be mistakes.
*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

6 Likes
49

Thanks for providing us with this data, this week I will take the time to take a look at this and see if there are any inconsistencies, that’s the beauty of web3.

5 Likes
50

Thanks for your help.


Additional information that may provide clues is posted below.

ADAO dApp Staking Developer Reward Receiving Address
XhdK6WfN4CzaeuPNT8v6s6YT1KgY2ftowEzr9KX9jTNjBsi

↓↓
dApp Staking Developer Reward transfer
(Extrinsic Hash:0x46bc278d65a5806c9c3165ba86db1dc9f9eb4a9bbbbd24376a26094e71215a1a)
↓↓

Native(SS58):YN8TficepPu9MGCcboqYzEjG9qii5zZVEwcEqv3s8xBZixj
EVM(H160):0xd28AB26224D2aaf3f17D0d9eC5B1Df9697fD5F1E
*Previously posted address (4).

↓↓
Deposit to Contract
(EVM Txhash:0x1970d8547fe93a6dd7ae01d6bba2a2d30836dcd496d53e9119e5e026faa6c452)
↓↓

Native(SS58):XMNWsnaYJh4YFqmuDYEX6d9w3BAXnRDuaaD4FGf6shjK74P
EVM(H160):DistributeRewards Contract | 0x68543ebffbdde5a1d6d8e6bbeca4220c6a34ba05
*Previously posted address (3).

↓↓
Distribution to 3 addresses
(Extrinsic Hash:0x9245d37245bd3ad201805157c21438d0fbf8de89d0dab8787fd3fc582a5c1670)
↓↓

・Incubation Fund(10%)
Native(SS58):aUQQwQE2TMkRXBvsRnCLs7MKwEoKCpwKwY9xwvPFQ9gtHiq
EVM(H160):0xaB945b438EaB12A73f3d2e5301d53582Bb61f644

・On-chain Treasury(30%)
Native(SS58):a2btq3N6ygGyVK36yf8p3gHfpqCRCzQwhqZWo1tNWyUGL1q
EVM(H160):0x9E5A8BB92C3E5A8bf5bad9c40a807dE4151311d1

・Revenue Reward(60%)
Native(SS58):ZAX1YBVJFsmk3oviYToPbTqSTeGECoynYmyFNsVgDoimyzA
EVM(H160):ADAO insterest-bearing ASTR
(ibASTR) | 0x3BFcAE71e7d5ebC1e18313CeCEbCaD8239aA386c

ADAO
ADAO2421×1362 315 KB

Above is the flow of distributing ADAO developer rewards.

From the following TxHash, it can be seen that address (2) previously posted has transferred ASTRs to the Incubation Fund.

TxHash:0x8a0525b4ff6d29985c9f8777272dfa35dbc5ea6e21b83c65806c9638693ddee6




*I am a layman who cannot read code, so there may be mistakes.
*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

5 Likes
51

Thank you very much for taking the time to collect this information and share it with us. I don’t know if this thread is really the best place to share this information since, the vote passed and ADAO was removed from the program.

What do you think @Gaius_sama? :eyes:

4 Likes
52

Thank you for your comment, you are always very kind. :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

Don’t worry, another related proposal is already posted. This will be closed soon. :four_leaf_clover:

2 Likes
53

There are several addresses that are calling the ADAO’s contract and attempting to Deposit or Withdraw, but it is probably best to refrain from executing it now as it will just waste gas costs.

The contract has not functioned properly since the unresolved error occurred, so it seems that all subsequent contract calls will have their execution reverted.

I am not very knowledgeable about programming so it is difficult for me to understand the details of the behavior of the contract, but I don’t think the cause is due to a lack of gas cost.


I think the cause of the contract not functioning properly is probably related to the 5 addresses mentioned in my previous post.

1
11920×832 162 KB

Source

2
21920×1920 190 KB

Source

The total quantity of ASTR that 5 addresses are claiming return by calling the contract and burn ibASTR is 159244.7649973404321853 ASTR.

However, the total amount of ASTRs actually unbonded from the Native account linked to the contract in response to the 5 addresses claims is 139426.255748914635927463 ASTR, and the numbers do not match.

More specifically, the amount claimed by the address that issued the last transaction among the five addresses is 139057.0899678870724044 ASTR, while the amount actually unbonded is 119238.580719461276146563 ASTR. The discrepancy occurs in this part.

3
34320×1043 437 KB

Source

4
42418×353 39 KB

Source

I think this is due to the fact that the Native account had only 119238.580719461276146563 ASTR remaining in the Stake balance at the time of the claim.

I am doubtful what the current status of the unbonded 139426.255748914635927463 ASTR is.

Looking at the Native account only, the unbonded 139426.255748914635927463 ASTR should have already been returned to 5 addresses, but due to a mismatch with the amount requested by EVM Contracts, it seems that an “Out of funds” error has occurred and the return has failed.

I checked the details of the current Native account balance and found that the unbonded ASTR is included in the “Locked balance” but is neither “Staking” nor “Unbonding”, so I am not sure what the current status is.

5
52015×518 51.5 KB

Source

6
62695×837 113 KB

Source

7
72747×1073 155 KB

Source

I think that this incomprehensible status is preventing the contract from working properly, leading to the current situation where Deposit and Withdraw transactions are failing.

If so, is there any way to return the unbonded 139426.255748914635927463 ASTR to the 5 addresses in order to get the contract back to normal?


I seek the help of anyone who knows more about this.




*I am a layman who cannot read code, so there may be mistakes.

*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

2 Likes
54

In a previous post, I mentioned the possibility of a connection between both operators based on the transaction history of addresses associated with ADAO and Avault, and I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

If there is a connection, I would like the Astar team to attempt to contact Avault. It may be a long shot, but if we can call the private key holders of the addresses associated with ADAO through contact with Avault, I think it is possible to compensate the victims from the funds remaining in the Incubation Fund and On-chain Treasury.

I would also like to ask for help from those who know more about the ADAO contract error problem to see if there exists a way to resolve it without the intervention of the ADAO operator, who has lost touch.

If this issue is resolved and the ASTR is returned to me safely, I will send a portion of it to the person who helped me as a token of my appreciation.

*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

1 Like
55

Below is open P2P comment to As1027 in Japanese. Sorrry. :pray:

私も開発者ではないので、以下は話半分に聞いてください。

少し前の you さんのスペースで、この件も話題に上がっていたようです。
基本的には、Astar の Update に起因しているようで（これも証明不能？）、gas 代だけが問題ではなく、Astar を 一部 Downgrade しなくてはいけないかも？？（よく分かりません）
ってことは現実的には解決不能です？（別途解決策は、ある気もしますが・・・ADAO運営さんがいないことには、それも難しい？ ）

個人的に、私は2022年2月から Astar に関わってきていますが、一度も ADOA を聞いたことがありません（たぶんちょっと見て、これは駄目って判断したと思います）。確かに dAppStaking にはあって、これ何？？感覚でした。

随分前に終わっていたのに（ご指摘のようにずっと前から運営さんの活動も終わっていて）何故逃げなかったのか？ って思っています。

現状、残念なことに Web3 は文字通り、アウトロー（法律の適応外）の世界です。
無体物の所有権・財産権は法律（民法等）上ありません（財産的価値は多分あります？）。
法的には誰も守ってくれません。誰も責めれません（別途契約等でも無い限り）。

Treasury からの補償・救済って概念もありません（使う用途・目的が違います）。

私も Hacking 等にあったこともありますし、間接的に被害を受けたこともあるので、非常に残念に思いますが・・・誰も助けてくれない（助けられない？？）、コメントすらくれないのが現状です。

私自身は、昔 SE だったので、それなりに勉強をしながら、自衛の武器を持って（持とうとして）この世界にいるつもりです。最低限、自分の身は自分で守らないと・・・
（これが改善されることはありません。 Code is Law の世界。Code には Bug, Hacking がつきものなので・・・）

長文失礼しました。何の役にもたちません。むしろご不快に感じられるかもですが、事実は事実です。（ただこの経験を次に活かしてください） :pray:

1 Like
56

Thank you for taking the time to do this for me.

I understand what you are saying and generally agree.

However, I don’t think we necessarily live in a ruthless world where users who are caught in a problem are locked in a cage of self-responsibility and told to give up without question, even though there is still the possibility of solving the problem.

Even though it has been delisted from dApp Staking, ADAO remains a project that belongs to the Astar ecosystem, and the act of seeking a solution while borrowing from the wisdom of the community should not be contrary to the purpose of using the forum.

I assume you are referring to the following regarding the Astar upgrade, but since the errors in the calls to the ADAO contract only started occurring on December 17, 2023 UTC, and deposits and withdrawals seemed to be working fine until then, I am not sure if the upgrade is the cause considering the time frame.

But that’s interesting, and I’d appreciate it if @you425 could elaborate, including whether a downgrade is realistically possible.

Also, regarding the matter of not being able to contact the ADAO operators, I would appreciate it if the Aster team could attempt to contact them if possible, as there is some doubt about the relation with the Avault operators, as I mentioned in my previous post.

If there is no longer any way to do so, then we have no choice, but until then, I would like to continue the discussion without giving up.

I know that many of you are less interested in the ADAO issue, but I would appreciate your help.

Thank you.


*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

3 Likes
57

Below is open comment to As1027 in Japanese. Sorrry. :pray:
（ But not only to As1027, related Japanese members. ）

ご返事ありがとうございます。いくつか議論すべき点はあるかと思いますが、そこは省いて技術的な点だけお伝えしたいと思います。
（ 私にとっても英語は難しく、まずは日本語が分かるコミュニティだけで、と思いますのでこのままスイマセン。きちんと伝わることを優先します。 ）

Astar Tokenomics 2.0 には、いくつかの段階があります。多分影響を受けたのは、Release v5.15.0 ではなく、hybrid inflation model が Astar に適応された v5.27.0 からだと思います。このあといろんな方々からガス代高騰してトランザクション通らない的コメントが寄せられるようになりました。

技術的な詳細は私も分からないのですが、事実としてそうです。
Update そのものは、当然特に問題はなく、各ＰＪで問題があればそれに対応する修正を加えればいいだけです（ 運営さんがいないと当然対応できません ）。

以上

5 Likes
58

Thanks for your kindness in providing the information.

I have foolishly shown a version that was apparently misguided. My apologies.

As you pointed out, v5.27.0 would match the start date of the contract error, and since it appears to be an upgrade that affects gas prices, it seems likely that this upgrade is the cause.

I am not familiar with the technical side of things, so please point out any mistakes, but if this upgrade is the cause, it seems to me that there is still a way to implement a temporary runtime downgrade, in addition to the option of getting the dApp fixed by the ADAO operator, as you mentioned.

As for downgrading, I don’t know exactly what steps can be taken, but there may be circumstances where, for example, it is technically feasible but practically difficult because it would affect the entire network.

I would still like to borrow some wisdom from @you425 on this matter.

As for the ADAO operator, I would appreciate it if the Astar team could attempt to contact the Avault operator.

If I personally tried to contact the Avault operator, I would probably not be taken seriously. However, the Astar team, which we believe has been in close contact with the Avault operators in the past through the incubation program, may be able to contact them smoothly.

If you could ask the Avault operator about the relation with the ADAO operator based on the past suspicious transaction history, it might give us some clues, so I am sorry to ask you to do so, but I would appreciate it if you could.

I apologize for the length of this article, which is difficult to read each time.

Thank you.


*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

2 Likes
59

Thank you for doing so much research.
I also think it is great that you continue to do what you can to resolve the issue.

As for downgrading the runtime, I am not a developer and I mentioned it only as a possibility. I am not sure if it is possible in the current state of Astar.
Therefore, I think there is a way to identify the error that is occurring in the ADAO contract and then try to downgrade, if possible, when it becomes available.

3 Likes
60

Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to reply.

It would be helpful if I could continue to borrow your wisdom.

*I am not good at English, so I am using a translation.

2 Likes